Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
Dec 3, 2012 2:00am PST
holds rise. >> schieffer: maya. >> what's outrageous is the way we govern is playing games of chicken and the losers losers are going to be the american public and the economy. we know what's going to have to happen. we know revenues are going to have to go up. we know we have to reign in spend .gz we know we have to reform entitlements. we know it will be hard work, a $4 trillion plan which is what it will take, is going to be filled with things we don't like. but we also know what we're doing by going up to the bring, waiting until the last minute, and adding all this uncertainty is creating a huge cost to the economy. the cheapest form of stimulus is certainty. and we don't have any of that right now. what you see is ceos not being able to hir. small businesses not being able to invest. and households not knowing if we will have a real recovery. and basically the election is over. and what people want is to stop the fighting and to see real governing and put in place a solution. the problem is not the policy at this point. it's the politics. and we have to find a way to bring them
Dec 2, 2012 8:30am PST
income beneficiaries. and we propose ways to make the government much smarter about how it buys medicine for medicare beneficiaries. >> schieffer: why did you choose to basically say "we're going to stop letting congress have the ability to raise the debt ceiling." >> we are not prepared to let the threat of default on america's credit, the savings of americans, the investments of americans be held00 to the political agenda of a group of people in congress over time. as you saw last august, that was very damaging to the american people. it's not the responsible way it govern. >> schieffer: are you betting eventually the republicans will cave on the taxes? >> there's no-- there's no path to an agreement that does not involve republicans acknowledging that rates have to go up for the wealthiest americans. >> schieffer: you're saying you can't do it just by eliminating deductions and other-- >> very good question. you know, we've taken a careful look at this, and we think we should limit deduction but if you look carefully at how to do this, there is no way to raise a meaningful amount of r
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2